All very interesting Gustave, but Im afraid Dr. Sokal proves my point quite readily.
<<These are all serious questions, which deserve careful investigation adhering to the highest standards of scientific and historical evidence. But they have no effect whatsoever on the underlying scientific questions: whether atoms (and silicon crystals, transistors and computers) really do behave according to the laws of quantum mechanics (and solid-state physics, quantum electronics and computer science). The militaristic orientation of American science has quite simply no bearing whatsoever on the ontological question, and only under a wildly implausible scenario could it have any bearing on the epistemological question. (E.g. if the worldwide community of solid-state physicists, following what they believe to be the conventional standards of scientific evidence, were to hastily accept an erroneous theory of semiconductor behavior because of their enthusiasm for the breakthrough in military technology that this theory would make possible>>
In short, your implausible conspiratorial scenario (may I say Naive scenario, as you are obviously unfamiliar with the dog eat dog world of academia; the idea that there is a national conspiracy amongst men and women who wont even speak to each other because of differing theoretical standpoints is ludicrous) fails to take into account two things:
1.) the facts of the hard science behind radioisotope dating and the forensic evidence of the physiology of the remains
2.) PEER REVIEW.
Your examples are quaint, they entertained me. Especially the Frenchie with his nonsense. However, no matter what bias or bottom line the researchers may have, their research must pass the test of evidence, and review. No amount of bias can make a carbon atom decay faster. No amount of bias will make a skull's dentition morph into something completely different. And saying something is true is not the same as it being true, no matter how loud you shout, or how many fellow conspirators you have.
As to the stakes, casinos and all that, there are none, save maybe the hamstringing of science by such cultural and philosophical biases on the part of certain native groups. Isnt that what you are railing against Gustave? And you dont seem to get the point, it doesnt matter who was here "first" because the extant native american groups would collectively be descendent from any such group(s!). Reservations are founded on treaties made with groups that were extant 100 years ago, based on the fact that they were just that, HERE. Not because, "oh, they were the first people in America, we'll wait until we have better evidence to prove them wrong, and then take the reservations too."
And you havent answered my objections from the last post Gustave. Tell me, would you care to defend the Big Hunter theory of the populating of the New World? Would you care to defend the romantic Clovis theory, that theorizes Asian peoples crossed a narrow land and time window into N. America following migrating megafauna? That these people developed a lithic technology, in situ, without any trace of technological continuity from the primitive lithics of Siberia, in break neck speed? And these same people not only went from Siberia to the tip of South America in approximately 1500 years, but hunted the big game of N. America to extinction too! Wow. Then of course there are those evil conspirators who have been scheming for the past 30 years to undermine this wonderful theory with all their inconvenient evidence...
Derek |
